Romans 1:22-25 gives the reasons
(22) Professing to know it all they made fools of themselves
(23)and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and birds and creatures (paraphrase)
24) therefore God gave them over to the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so their bodies would be dishonored among them..
25) for they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator...
"Lev 18:22 "'You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestible. "
Can't be more clear than the above.
 April 25, 2016 at 1:12pm
The problem is most “christians” only believe in Saved by Faith when it comes to sins they themselves commit. Whether homosexuality is actually a sin can be debated, but, following their logic, since it’s a “sin” they don’t commit, they can condemn it as something so inherently evil that it doesn’t fall under Saved by Faith, because those evil homosexuals have turned their backs on God and can never be called true believers. It’s hypocrisy at its worse, as nobody can know the heart of another, and what their relationship with God is truly.
 April 18, 2016 at 5:50pm
What about Loving v Virginia?? Should the US Supreme Court not have gotten involved in that case either? After all, the state was just setting rules to whom one can marry….
[-1] April 8, 2016 at 2:55pm
Once again, Matt shows his ignorance. I seriously doubt he knows any gay or transgender people, let alone any who live in Southern states. There are already laws on the books to prevent men from entering and using a woman’s restroom… but a transgender woman is NOT a man… and a transgender man is NOT a woman. These are not people who “cross dress”, as Matt suggests. These are not drag queens. Transvestite and Transgender are completely different things…. but, like usual, Matt doesn’t take the time to actually study the issue before he writes about it.
No, YOU need to do your research ... the city of Charlotte made an ordinance which permitted males in women's restrooms and shower rooms based on the male simply "feeling" like they were female (and vice versa).
This legislation was (supposedly) to undo that gross error. Likely Charlotte was kowtowing to a threatened lawsuit when they passed that ordinance. Charlotte may not have the funds to fight that fight, but the state does ... and should.
When a person has undergone a surgical reassignment, I agree that they should use the facilities which are intended for their current anatomical reality. But not until the new gender is an irreversible and undeniable fact.
 April 6, 2016 at 4:47pm
1 Sam 18:3 “Y’honatan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as he did himself.” (Complete Jewish Bible) — the phrase “made a covenant with” is indication of a marriage covenant, and Jonathan is pledging himself to David, body and soul.
Huh? Where did that leap in logic come from? A covenant is like an oath or contract. The Hebrew word is “brit”. By your logic, the Jewish circumcision ceremony is also a wedding because it’s called a “brit milah”, or literally a circumcision covenant.
The same term is used when Abraham signs a treaty with Avimelech. It's used repeatedly.
LOL, hey I can do that too, watch.
1 Kings 21:13 And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.
This obviously means that those two guys had homosexual relations with a small young boy and they killed them because they were too GAY! Way too GAY.
[-1] March 31, 2016 at 2:44pm
He is a disciple of the vehemently anti-gay “Dr” Michael Brown. He has refused to discuss these issues with people who disagree because the words are not his own, he is just parroting Brown. This puppet has strings.
Dr. Michael Brown tells the TRUTH which is something most Christians can't stomach...
 March 28, 2016 at 4:09pm
Oh, come on Matt… at least let’s be honest about this bill:
1) Clergy ALREADY are allowed to refuse to marry ANY couple who do not meet their faith requirements. You cannot force a Baptist preacher from performing a Jewish wedding ceremony. Catholic priests routinely refuse to marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic.
2) Churches, like the clergy, CAN and DO refuse to rent their property to host marriage ceremonies who do not meet their faith requirements.
3) Churches, and religious institutions CAN and DO have faith requirements for employment.
An Orthodox Jew cannot FORCE the Little Sisters of Hoboken to hire him to teach at their school.
SO nothing in this bill was being added to what is currently available for Clergy and Religious Institutions… what this bill DID do was expand WHO could claim to be a “religious organization”, which is any and everyone who “claims” to hold a “sincere religious objection” for any reason.
Actually, this bill clearly defined (narrowly) who could claim to be a religious organization.
"Faith based organization' means a church, a religious school, an association or convention of churches, a convention mission agency, or an integrated auxiliary of a church or convention or association of churches, when such entity is qualified as an exempt religious organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended."
How does this definition "expand WHO could claim to be a “religious organization”?" It seems rather specific.
"Catholic priests routinely refuse to marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic."
Since when? My mom, a Catholic, married a Baptist (he converted very late in life after all the kids had been raised Catholic). That was probably back in the 50s or 60s. My sister, a Catholic, married a Baptist (pretty sure he's Baptist). That was in the late 90s if I'm not mistaken. They married in a Catholic Church. I, a Catholic, married a Buddhist. That was just over 10 years ago.
None of us were refused. The only requirement was that we do our best to raise our children Catholic.
The Church may have refused to do that a long time ago, but they no longer refuse now. So you can't really say "routinely".
The Bill reads:
30 All individuals who are ministers of the gospel or clerics or religious practitioners
31 ordained or authorized to solemnize marriages, perform rites, or administer sacraments
32 according to the usages of the denomination shall be free to solemnize any marriage,
33 perform any rite, or administer any sacrament or to decline to do the same, in their
34 discretion, in the exercise of their rights to free exercise of religion under the Constitution
35 of this state or of the United States.
Here’s the link….
It's pretty narrow.
Apparently you haven't been paying attention. Just over the last few years, the law has been rapidly turning against private business owners who decline to participate in gay weddings. It's going to get much worse. In the UK, there have been lawsuits against churches whose clergy refused to officiate their weddings, and the same thing will happen here, without a doubt. The Georgia bill was a preemptive strike.
tmarends: read the effin bill and tell me where in the bill it would support the last paragraph of your post?
I'll help you even find it. http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20152016/HB/757
Are you really that stupid? Apples and oranges.
If the bill was so pedantic, redundant, irrelevant even, then why did everyone get their panties into such an oh-so-twisted wad? Methinks there really is a method to their madness, and that Mr. Walsh has a point or two. Or three.
So in other words, exactly what the bill said it would do, not allow the leftist gay loving hypocrites to force the "right, God fearing, country loving Americans" to do anything against their God given right to believe in what is good and right.
Uh, tmarends, you think the Emperor really is wearing clothes, don't you?
Matt like ALL right wing conservatives assumes he's preaching to the choir.
That;s is FOX's whole M.O.
Rush got very rich employing it.
On the humorous side, both Beck and Palin wee deemed too whacko EVEN FOR FOX.
Tmarends: the bill was to prevent frivolous lawsuits and to show support for religious liberty. The very fact that all those groups cried to daddy and got their way shows Matt's point: they WILL go after the churches now with fervor. It's a spiritual battle between good and evil. Much evil will be allowed because Christians have become "lukewarm" by not standing for the Lord. If you want to know how this battle ends, read the book of Revelation. ( hint- many bad things will occur but God wins). Read it and be prepared..
Well too many azzhole reaming ends,
Nice post. Except that some of your points are irrelevant to the issue and the rest of your argument is nonsense. I guarantee you that the fudge packers will sue to force some church and/or some minister to "marry" them. It's remarkable that it hasn't happened already.
You thought Top Gun was a volleyball movie didn't you?
 February 25, 2016 at 12:26pm
@1whoisright — You obviously know nothing about this case… this particular lesbian couple had used this bakery before… had bought a wedding cake from this bakery before… enjoyed both the cake and the service they got from this bakery before… All you “why don’t they just go some place else?” people — when you get good service from a business, aren’t you inclined to return to that business for future service? Aren’t you inclined to tell your friends about how wonderful the goods and service was? This is exactly what the lesbian couple was doing… rewarding this bakery with repeat service.
 February 1, 2016 at 6:38pm
In the US, time and again, the courts have ruled that WORDS and IMAGES one finds offensive MAY be refused, but the basic service MAY NOT. In other words, if you bake and sell cakes in a public space (a storefront, not working out of your home) you cannot refuse to sell any cake you normally make to anyone who wants it. What you CAN refuse is adding WORDS or IMAGES you find offensive, including “Support Gay Marriage” or “God hates ****”.
[-2] December 31, 2015 at 5:24pm
The lesbian couple was not asking for anything that the Kleins did not advertise that they sold. This isn’t a private transaction between two people… this is a business that sells goods. The business cannot refuse to sell something that they normally sell simply because of the buyers race, gender, eye color… or sexual orientation. That is the law in Oregon.
[-4] December 31, 2015 at 5:20pm
@Robbo_Ronnin The lesbian couple had already arranged to have a wedding cake made by the Klein’s… this was done at a Wedding Bazaar in the area that Melissa Klein was working at a booth for her business in. Melissa Klein had already taken the order to make the cake. It was when the couple went to the store to finalize the deal that Aaron Klein turned them away for being a lesbian couple. IF you sell wedding cakes… IF you advertise that you sell wedding cakes… AND IF you participate in a Wedding Bazaar to promote your selling of wedding cakes… sounds to me like the Kleins were actively seeking people who wanted to spend a little extra for a wedding cake.
As for your WBC example…. in court case after court case… it has been ruled the WORDS or IMAGES can be refused, but the actual service cannot. I can’t refuse to sell you the cake, but I can refuse to put those words on it.
[-6] December 31, 2015 at 12:11pm
How is this “Involuntary servitude”? The Klein’s sought out a business license so they could sell baked goods, including cakes, to the public. The granting of the license (which they sought after) came with stipulations on how the business must be run. This is true of EVERY business out there. Go ahead, check your own business license… it will stipulate which laws are applicable to the running of your business. These would include non-discrimination laws. IF sexual orientation is a protected class in the non-discrimination laws of the jurisdiction, as they are is this case, then you provide your service or risk losing your license.
"involuntary servitude"; being forced to work against your will. Like being forced into a work contract without your free consent.
And obtaining a business license does NOT abrogate your Constitutional rights. The Constitution is superior to lesser law. "public accommodation" laws are unconstitutional,they violate the 1st,5th,and 13th Amendments,which are still part of the Constitution.
you cannot be made to surrender your rights just to obtain a business license. Sheesh,do you folks EVER think about what you say?
Hey Jay...didn't you know that all requirements for a business license take legal precedence over any constitutional right? I guess some equal rights are more equal than others.
[-2] December 31, 2015 at 12:01pm
How is selling someone a cake, a cake you advertise that you sell on a regular basis, “participating” in the ceremony where the cake is being served? If they sell a cake for someone’s bar mitzvah, are they “participating” in the event? If they sell a cake celebrating someone’s divorce, are they “participating” in the divorce?
To participate in an event means to contribute something to help that event occur, such as labor or money. Yes, if you contribute a cake to an event like a wedding or a bar mitzvah, you are participating in that event to some degree, just like the person who owns location where it's held is participating. I don't think your divorce example is accurate; they wouldn't be participating in the divorce, which would have already occurred, just the party relevant to it.
Also, the lesbian couple wasn't refused service. They were welcome to puchase any of the cakes already made and serve it at their wedding. They wanted to the bakers to prepare a wedding cake specifically for their wedding. Even if you refuse to agree with my previous paragraph, do you disagree that preparing a specific cake for a specific wedding would count as participating in it?
Finally, if a group like the WBC wanted a bakery to prepare a cake that read "God Hates F**s," do you think the bakers should be allowed to refuse service because of their personal beliefs? How would the principles of that situation be any different from this one?
@Robbo_Ronnin The lesbian couple had already arranged to have a wedding cake made by the Klein's... this was done at a Wedding Bazaar in the area that Melissa Klein was working at a booth for her business in. Melissa Klein had already taken the order to make the cake. It was when the couple went to the store to finalize the deal that Aaron Klein turned them away for being a lesbian couple. IF you sell wedding cakes... IF you advertise that you sell wedding cakes... AND IF you participate in a Wedding Bazaar to promote your selling of wedding cakes... sounds to me like the Kleins were actively seeking people who wanted to spend a little extra for a wedding cake.
As for your WBC example.... in court case after court case... it has been ruled the WORDS or IMAGES can be refused, but the actual service cannot. I can't refuse to sell you the cake, but I can refuse to put those words on it.
And, don’t forget that you don't eat cake in a wedding ceremony. You eat it later at a party. If you sell food for parties, it's none of your damn business what the people who buy it are celebrating at those parties.
@tmarends-They didn’t turn them away for being a lesbians. They weren’t aware that the reception was for a same sex wedding ceremony; they declined to participate because doing so would violate their religious convictions on the issue. As for your remark about selling wedding cakes and such, yes, they were trying to attract clients. Why is that relevant? Every business does that. The Klein’s want to attract customers, but they don’t want to serve an event they disagree with. It’s no different than if they didn’t want to bake a bachelor party cake for a stripper to jump out of because they disagree with sex services. They disagree with the particulars of an event, so they shouldn’t be forced to participate
As for my WBC example, I wasn’t asking about the legality; I was addressing the principle difference between those two situations. Specifically, there isn’t any. If people don’t want to participate in an event they disagree with, they shouldn’t be forced to. Remember, prior to same sex marriage getting legal recognition, its proponents mocked the critics reassuring then that same sex marriage wouldn’t affect them and that no one who disagrees with it would be forced to participate. A year hasn’t even passed, and those people are already breaking their promises.
@Grover_Standpipe-You stated, “it’s none of your…business...” If that same sex wedding reception is none of the Klein’s business, they have no reason to bake a cake for it, do they?
[-15] December 31, 2015 at 11:50am
Actually, this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment, as the couple gave up that right when they filed for a business license, and agreed to all the State and Local laws in running that business. A business license is nothing more than a contract with the government to run your business, and like any other contract, the terms set in it are binding.
Sorry,but government has no right or power to force people to give up rights in order to make a living or go into business. The Constitution is -higher law- than any enacted by Congress or state,local governments.
Just because someone is in business, that does not grant you the right to demand involuntary servitude from them!
If the customer were denied the right to purchase an item for sale off a shelf or out of a display case, then there would be a discrimination case. But to demand something be made is harassment!
The lesbian couple was not asking for anything that the Kleins did not advertise that they sold. This isn't a private transaction between two people... this is a business that sells goods. The business cannot refuse to sell something that they normally sell simply because of the buyers race, gender, eye color... or sexual orientation. That is the law in Oregon.
So what if the state of Oregon passes a law that says you must be in a heterosexual relationship if you want to run a business? Your saying that would be enforceable?
Care to quote the exact law that states business owners forfeit their constitutional rights? Never mind you can't. The law doesn't exist. That's hogwash.
There's no contract until there is a mutual consideration. The bakers didn't take the pervert's money, so they don't owe the pervs any service. By the way, the government can't get around the Constitutionwith licensing. Rights arn't doled out by government minions, they're a possession of the people upon which the bow-tied throne sniffers have no claim or regulatory power. Rights aren't conditional upon government permission.
Following your twisted logic, suppose some sicko goes in and demands a cake be made celebrating pedophelia? Would you then claim the bakers were in the wrong for refusing to do so? How about one celebrating drunk driving, or drug abuse? I could go on, but my point is, everyone has something they are sickened by, and no one should be forced to glorify it. Let the lezzies simply find another bakery, I'm sure there are plenty run by others of their ilk.
December 22, 2015 at 4:25pm
Disney cheapened out on the musical score? Written, once again, by the legendary John Williams… maintaining musical themes through 7 films now with the same composer??
[-1] December 15, 2015 at 5:16pm
I cannot, and will not, vote for Cruz. If he gets the nomination, I’m voting 3rd party.
Why vote third party? You may just as well vote for the Hildebeest and be done with it. Split the vote and the Hildebeest is a shoe in.
Some of us have come to grips that no matter who is the republican candidate, we will vote for that person. I dislike Trump hugely but will do everything in my power to keep Hillary out of being POTUS and that means I absolutely would vote for Trump.
Then don't, it's going to be a landslide anyway. Trump/Cruz
 September 16, 2015 at 1:28pm
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) — “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J. (1996) — “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) — “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) — “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. [The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right,” and “The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.”
 September 16, 2015 at 1:21pm
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur (1974) — “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977) — “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Service International (1977) — “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) — “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley (1987) — “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression of emotional support and public commitment.”
 September 16, 2015 at 1:15pm
Maynard v. Hill (1888) — The Supreme Court ruled that marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) — SC ruled that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson (1942) — SC ruled that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man,” and “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) — “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Loving v. Virginia (1967) — “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Boddie v. Connecticut (1971) — “Marriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur (1974) -- “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977) -- “When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
Carey v. Population Service International (1977) -- “It is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) -- “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley (1987) -- “The decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression of emotional support and public commitment.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) -- “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
M.L.B. v. S.L.J. (1996) -- “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) -- “Our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) -- "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. [The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right," and "The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest."
None of those are in the US Constitution. Nowhere in the US Constitution is marriage addressed.
At best it can be placed within the First amendment, as an exercise of association and/or religion. If that is the case, then the Congress is prohibited from making laws governing it and so are the states.
Since @solo1 asked for a Constitutional reference, I'm not sure why you would just list some court cases. You may also disabuse yourself of the idea that a SCOTUS decision is equivalent to a Constitutional Amendment, since that would make the US an oligarchy.
I do notice a bit of a pattern in the summaries that marriage is ruled as a personal choice without State oversight. This likely goes back to Democrats trying to make interracial marriages illegal, as in you could be arrested for claiming to be married, not just denyed a State license.
This is a pattern of rulings that I would agree with. If you and 300 guys want to declare yourselves married, I really don't think the government should have the power to stop you, as long as all participants are willing adults.
However, since these rulings give me the same right to define marriage without State intrusion, I have the right to not consider you and your 300 friends as being married, getting married, having a wedding, etc.
Finally, non-interference is different than granted benefits. When the State makes laws to grants benefits, it has the right set the guidelines for those who do or do not get those benefits. And since the 14th Amendment only applies to entities of equal application under the referenced law, a properly passed law or Amendment is needed defining marriage in a way to include you and your 300 friends before you can claim equal protection under the law.
[-2] September 6, 2015 at 11:52pm
“The three-page motion does not include arguments as to why Davis should be released but amends Davis’ earlier appeal of the judge’s order.”
I’m sorry… it sounds more and more like Ms Davis is just being played by her “attorneys”… they are not interested in her at all… it’s all about lining their own pockets.
Yep, they don't care about her they have their own agenda. That is why they are representing her for free. They don't work for her they work for the people who finance them.
I hope so. She deserves it.
Partially correct but I think her real goal is to ultimately line her own pockets. Do you honestly think she didn't know: her salary would continue - she could not be fined -she could not be fired. The Clerks office has been IN THE FAMILY for decades complete with nepotism (her brother}.
IT'S ALSO ABOUT GIVING THE IMPERIAL JUDICIARY A GOOD KICK IN THE WOLSACK-WHICH IS LONG OVERDUE.